Pat Buchanan called out by Rachel Maddow

thaiboxerken · 20th July 2009, 04:20 PM

Wow, the racism of Pat really comes out in this interview with Rachel Maddow, as well as his religious bigotry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31952924

Cicero · 20th July 2009, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Wow, the racism of Pat really comes out in this interview with Rachel Maddow, as well as his religious bigotry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31952924

Funny, PB&J's well known predilection for Die Aryan Volk, his well known distaste for Israel, and his Irish Catholic sense of superiority never bothered MSNBC before. Since PB&J is MSNBC's political pundit and Maddow's " colleague," she isn't "interviewing" him.

BTW: Your avatar is still out of date. POTUS Obama is doing warrantless wiretaps, renditions and GITMO is still open for business.

parky76 · 20th July 2009, 04:32 PM

Oy...I got some flashbacks of MLK. This man sure can preach. Good thing he is on the right side of history.

thaiboxerken · 20th July 2009, 04:33 PM

Did you have an actual point to make, CCRow?

parky76 · 20th July 2009, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

POTUS Obama is doing warrantless wiretaps, renditions and GITMO is still open for business.

and if he wasn't the Republicans would be bashing him as a terrorist-loving bleeding heart anti-American.

with the GOP...Obama just can't win....so why try?

dudalb · 20th July 2009, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Did you have an actual point to make, CCRow?

He has a point about the Avatar. Kicking a corpse gets real boring to begin with, and it ws never that clever anyway.

Cicero · 20th July 2009, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Did you have an actual point to make, CCRow?

Yes. Isn't POTUS Obama relieving himself on the U.S. Constitution? Or does this offense depend on the urinator's political party?

Chaos · 20th July 2009, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Yes. Isn't POTUS Obama relieving himself on the U.S. Constitution? Or does this offense depend on the urinator's political party?

Let me put it this way: is he doing anything which you criticized Bush for? Or is it simply that he is doing things which are automatically wrong if a Democrat does them... you know, like being president, or breathing.

thaiboxerken · 20th July 2009, 05:03 PM

Ok, Cicero, now that my avatar is changed, did you actually have a point about the thread topic?

Ziggurat · 20th July 2009, 05:15 PM

Why can't they both lose?

Cicero · 20th July 2009, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Chaos

Let me put it this way: is he doing anything which you criticized Bush for? Or is it simply that he is doing things which are automatically wrong if a Democrat does them... you know, like being president, or breathing.

I have never criticized POTUS Bush or POTUS Obama for warrantless wiretaps, renditions, or keeping GITMO open. But if I had an avatar that did mock Bush for these things, I would have updated it to mock POTUS Obama.

But now that thaiboxerken has a new avatar, it is moot.

Cicero · 20th July 2009, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Ok, Cicero, now that my avatar is changed, did you actually have a point about the thread topic?

It's not clear if the SNL skit "IT'S PAT" title that appears 5:22 minutes into the clip is referring to Maddow or Buchanan.

dudalb · 20th July 2009, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why can't they both lose?

That's my attitude. Maddow is not quite as obnoxiious as Pat, but she is still a blind partisan willing to distort and at times out and out lie to promote her agenda.

thaiboxerken · 20th July 2009, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

That's my attitude. Maddow is not quite as obnoxiious as Pat, but she is still a blind partisan willing to distort and at times out and out lie to promote her agenda.

She's obnoxious because she disagrees with Pat's "white power" position?

Cicero · 21st July 2009, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

She's obnoxious because she disagrees with Pat's "white power" position?

What is the point of having a parade of guests that come on and agree with everything the host says as is the case with Keith Olbermann's "Countdown?"

PB&J isn't voicing his position to be the Devil's Advocate. His wacky views have long been established. The exchange between Maddow and PB&J makes for good TV. Even after their views are aired, these two are still buddies.

David Wong · 21st July 2009, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

She's obnoxious because she disagrees with Pat's "white power" position?

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it.

It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!"

Dr Adequate · 21st July 2009, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

That's my attitude. Maddow is not quite as obnoxiious as Pat, but she is still a blind partisan willing to distort and at times out and out lie to promote her agenda.

OK, so let me introduce another subject.

"Pat Buchanan called out by people who are not mentally ill."

Whatever we may think of Ms Maddow about other issues, she's got him bang to rights about this one, hasn't she? So less of the ad hominem and more with the spitting on Buchanan, yes?

dudalb · 21st July 2009, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by David Wong

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it.

It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!"

Thank you for saving be the trouble of replying to thaiboxerken's remark.

Cicero · 21st July 2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by David Wong

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it.

It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!"

This is SOP for liberal pundit shows. The View has on Liz Hasellbach to argue the conservative POV. While she may not share PB&J's crazy weltanschauung, she also doesn't have PB&J's gift for polemics.

pgwenthold · 21st July 2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

OK, so let me introduce another subject.

"Pat Buchanan called out by people who are not mentally ill."

Whatever we may think of Ms Maddow about other issues, she's got him bang to rights about this one, hasn't she? So less of the ad hominem and more with the spitting on Buchanan, yes?

That's Dr Maddow, btw

(she has a PhD in Poly Sci from Oxford or Cambridge ... I forget which one)

Dr Adequate · 21st July 2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Thank you for saving be the trouble of replying to thaiboxerken's remark.

Be has been saved, thank Wong!

Cicero · 21st July 2009, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

OK, so let me introduce another subject.

"Pat Buchanan called out by people who are not mentally ill."

Whatever we may think of Ms Maddow about other issues, she's got him bang to rights about this one, hasn't she? So less of the ad hominem and more with the spitting on Buchanan, yes?

Even a blind squirrel occasionally roots up an acorn.

Dr Adequate · 21st July 2009, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

That's Dr Maddow, btw

(she has a PhD in Poly Sci from Oxford or Cambridge ... I forget which one)

Well I have a PhD in math, but I don't make people refer to me as ...

OK, I'll shut up now.

Dr Adequate · 21st July 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Even a blind squirrel occasionally roots up an acorn.

Is this your way of admitting that she was right?

Cicero · 21st July 2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

That's Dr Maddow, btw

(she has a PhD in Poly Sci from Oxford or Cambridge ... I forget which one)

How many times did (or do) you refer to the former Secretary of State as Dr. Rice? Babs Boxer refers to her as "madam."

Cicero · 21st July 2009, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Is this your way of admitting that she was right?

Read post #2

Dr Adequate · 21st July 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Read post #2

Is that your way of saying yes?

Cleon · 21st July 2009, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Is that your way of saying yes?

I think Cicero would sooner have his arm chewed off by rabid weasels than admit that a liberal was correct.

thaiboxerken · 21st July 2009, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by David Wong

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement.

The strawman is built by you. Rachel isn't saying that what Pat says represents the republican opposition to Sotomayor. She's saying that Pat is a more extreme voice of what the republican opposition is saying. They are trying to use her race as the reason to why they oppose her. Pat's racism is just more visible. The rest of them, they seem to be raising racist points with more subterfuge.

GreNME · 21st July 2009, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by David Wong

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it.

It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!"

I agree with this. I didn't like the video because Maddow was obviously playing the partisan distortion game as much as Buchanan was. Yes, Buchanan seems to have no freaking clue what AA is or does (if the much-discussed court case says anything about AA, it's that AA ideals were upheld), and yes Buchanan is a raging bigot. However, Maddow's attempt form the get-go to make the discussion only about race (yes, I know that many senators beat the race card drum in the hearings) just shows her own political blind spot-- well, that or it was a really poor impression of Jon Stewart.

Side note regarding the hearings: I have to say that I have on several occasions been very impressed with Senator Lindsey Graham and his refreshing candor. I recall him having the same type of open, frank, yet still critical type of candor when Roberts was up for review, and I recall he did the same with Alito. I may not agree with some of his politics and I may not agree with the way he may vote in congress, but I do have to say that this is one of the guys in the Republican Party that I actually respect for his straight-forward demeanor and his fairly consistent conduct in these SCOTUS hearings. I'm glad that he's currently in office for the opposition party.

dudalb · 21st July 2009, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The strawman is built by you. Rachel isn't saying that what Pat says represents the republican opposition to Sotomayor. She's saying that Pat is a more extreme voice of what the republican opposition is saying. They are trying to use her race as the reason to why they oppose her. Pat's racism is just more visible. The rest of them, they seem to be raising racist points with more subterfuge.

Ya gotta love semantics. That is distinctiion without a difference. The end message is the same:The vast majority of the GOP is racist and evil.

dudalb · 21st July 2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

agree with this. I didn't like the video because Maddow was obviously playing the partisan distortion game as much as Buchanan was. Yes, Buchanan seems to have no freaking clue what AA is or does (if the much-discussed court case says anything about AA, it's that AA ideals were upheld), and yes Buchanan is a raging bigot. However, Maddow's attempt form the get-go to make the discussion only about race (yes, I know that many senators beat the race card drum in the hearings) just shows her own political blind spot-- well, that or it was a really poor impression of Jon Stewart.

Exactly. Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are using the same tactic: Take an extreme example and then say "THis is what conservatives (Or liberals) are really like".
They also use a variation on this: Pick well spoken,intelligent spokesman for your point of view, and pick people who come off poorly on TV as the spokesmen for the opposite point of view.
What I don't get is how people can--with a straight face-- condemn a tactic when used by the opposition, but support it when used by somoene on their side.
In many cases,the underlying thought is "I know they are using cheap tactics, but any means is justified if my side wins".

Olowkow · 21st July 2009, 04:20 PM

Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? She looks white to me. Latina is not a race. There are black, white, oriental and indian latinos. Latino just means Spanish speaking and not from Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino

Quote:

In the United States, the term is in official use in the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino, defined as "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.

David Wong · 21st July 2009, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The strawman is built by you. Rachel isn't saying that what Pat says represents the republican opposition to Sotomayor. She's saying that Pat is a more extreme voice of what the republican opposition is saying. They are trying to use her race as the reason to why they oppose her. Pat's racism is just more visible. The rest of them, they seem to be raising racist points with more subterfuge.

She could have had any of countless Republicans as guests. She chose him.

She chose him for a specific purpose: Because it's easy to make him look like a fool.

She didn't invent the technique; they all do it. I heard Sean Hannity bring a liberal 19 year-old girl on to debate (a college student who had written an angry email or something) and Thom Hartmann loves to bring on that nutbar from the Ayn Rand institute to be the representative of what "the right" wants to do in America.

dirtywick · 21st July 2009, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? She looks white to me. Latina is not a race. There are black, white, oriental and indian latinos. Latino just means Spanish speaking and not from Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino

Eh, it's as much a race as any of the other race labels are.

ProbeX · 21st July 2009, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? [No.]She looks white to me.

Funny. I think her features kind of look Black. Then again, quite a few people who call themselves Latino have African blood or have a real blend of various ethnicities. My guess is many of us by now are probably more "mixed" than ever before, in this country.

GreNME · 21st July 2009, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Exactly. Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are using the same tactic: Take an extreme example and then say "THis is what conservatives (Or liberals) are really like".
They also use a variation on this: Pick well spoken,intelligent spokesman for your point of view, and pick people who come off poorly on TV as the spokesmen for the opposite point of view.
What I don't get is how people can--with a straight face-- condemn a tactic when used by the opposition, but support it when used by somoene on their side.
In many cases,the underlying thought is "I know they are using cheap tactics, but any means is justified if my side wins".

*return volley*

Again, I agree. And unfortunately this has become the face of much of US political discourse as of late. It's not so much that these types haven't existed previously, but now that the news networks are playing harder to the hype they're increasingly getting more and more air-time.

Olowkow · 21st July 2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Eh, it's as much a race as any of the other race labels are.

Good point. I agree that race labels are nonsense, but if one uses words as they are intended, Latino is an ethnic or linguistic group, much like Breton, or Celt.

GreNME · 21st July 2009, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? She looks white to me. Latina is not a race. There are black, white, oriental and indian latinos. Latino just means Spanish speaking and not from Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino

The ethnic distinction usually is the term 'hispanic' while the cultural distinction is usually 'Latino'. They are, however, relatively interchangeable. The distinction is used more as a difference between the hispanics and Latinos in Central and South America and the more indigenous ethnicities (though there is often heavy intermingling).

GreNME · 21st July 2009, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Olowkow

Good point. I agree that race labels are nonsense, but if one uses words as they are intended, Latino is an ethnic or linguistic group, much like Breton, or Celt.

No, it's not, any more than claiming Arabs can't be anti-semitic because they are semitic themselves.

20th July 2009, 04:20 PM	#1
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	Pat Buchanan called out by Rachel Maddow Wow, the racism of Pat really comes out in this interview with Rachel Maddow, as well as his religious bigotry. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31952924
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

20th July 2009, 04:33 PM	#4
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	Did you have an actual point to make, CCRow?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

20th July 2009, 04:33 PM	#5
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,495	Originally Posted by Cicero POTUS Obama is doing warrantless wiretaps, renditions and GITMO is still open for business. and if he wasn't the Republicans would be bashing him as a terrorist-loving bleeding heart anti-American. with the GOP...Obama just can't win....so why try?
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

20th July 2009, 04:42 PM	#7
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Did you have an actual point to make, CCRow? Yes. Isn't POTUS Obama relieving himself on the U.S. Constitution? Or does this offense depend on the urinator's political party?
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins Last edited by Cicero; 20th July 2009 at 04:44 PM.

20th July 2009, 05:02 PM	#8
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 6,360	Originally Posted by Cicero Yes. Isn't POTUS Obama relieving himself on the U.S. Constitution? Or does this offense depend on the urinator's political party? Let me put it this way: is he doing anything which you criticized Bush for? Or is it simply that he is doing things which are automatically wrong if a Democrat does them... you know, like being president, or breathing.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

20th July 2009, 04:29 PM	#2
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Wow, the racism of Pat really comes out in this interview with Rachel Maddow, as well as his religious bigotry. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31952924 Funny, PB&J's well known predilection for Die Aryan Volk, his well known distaste for Israel, and his Irish Catholic sense of superiority never bothered MSNBC before. Since PB&J is MSNBC's political pundit and Maddow's " colleague," she isn't "interviewing" him. BTW: Your avatar is still out of date. POTUS Obama is doing warrantless wiretaps, renditions and GITMO is still open for business.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins Last edited by Cicero; 20th July 2009 at 04:53 PM.

20th July 2009, 04:32 PM	#3
parky76 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 15,495	Oy...I got some flashbacks of MLK. This man sure can preach. Good thing he is on the right side of history.
	__________________ 9-11 Truther: "We don't need facts. We only need doubt."

20th July 2009, 04:42 PM	#6
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,451	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Did you have an actual point to make, CCRow? He has a point about the Avatar. Kicking a corpse gets real boring to begin with, and it ws never that clever anyway.

20th July 2009, 05:03 PM	#9
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	Ok, Cicero, now that my avatar is changed, did you actually have a point about the thread topic?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

20th July 2009, 05:15 PM	#10
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 13,874	Why can't they both lose?
	__________________ "There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it... We are all too prone to wander from ourselves, to affect Europe, and watch her frowns and smiles. We need this hot lesson of general hatred, and henceforth must never forget it. Never again will we trust the moral sense nor abstract friendliness of a single government of the world." - Walt Whitman, 1864

20th July 2009, 05:26 PM	#11
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by Chaos Let me put it this way: is he doing anything which you criticized Bush for? Or is it simply that he is doing things which are automatically wrong if a Democrat does them... you know, like being president, or breathing. I have never criticized POTUS Bush or POTUS Obama for warrantless wiretaps, renditions, or keeping GITMO open. But if I had an avatar that did mock Bush for these things, I would have updated it to mock POTUS Obama. But now that thaiboxerken has a new avatar, it is moot.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

20th July 2009, 05:32 PM	#12
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Ok, Cicero, now that my avatar is changed, did you actually have a point about the thread topic? It's not clear if the SNL skit "IT'S PAT" title that appears 5:22 minutes into the clip is referring to Maddow or Buchanan.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

20th July 2009, 05:33 PM	#13
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,451	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Why can't they both lose? That's my attitude. Maddow is not quite as obnoxiious as Pat, but she is still a blind partisan willing to distort and at times out and out lie to promote her agenda.

20th July 2009, 08:08 PM	#14
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	Originally Posted by dudalb That's my attitude. Maddow is not quite as obnoxiious as Pat, but she is still a blind partisan willing to distort and at times out and out lie to promote her agenda. She's obnoxious because she disagrees with Pat's "white power" position?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st July 2009, 09:41 AM	#15
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken She's obnoxious because she disagrees with Pat's "white power" position? What is the point of having a parade of guests that come on and agree with everything the host says as is the case with Keith Olbermann's "Countdown?" PB&J isn't voicing his position to be the Devil's Advocate. His wacky views have long been established. The exchange between Maddow and PB&J makes for good TV. Even after their views are aired, these two are still buddies.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

21st July 2009, 12:14 PM	#16
David Wong Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,697	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken She's obnoxious because she disagrees with Pat's "white power" position? No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it. It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!"
	__________________ Author, John Dies at the End. Available now in hardcover. Editor, Cracked.com.

21st July 2009, 01:09 PM	#17
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by dudalb That's my attitude. Maddow is not quite as obnoxiious as Pat, but she is still a blind partisan willing to distort and at times out and out lie to promote her agenda. OK, so let me introduce another subject. "Pat Buchanan called out by people who are not mentally ill." Whatever we may think of Ms Maddow about other issues, she's got him bang to rights about this one, hasn't she? So less of the ad hominem and more with the spitting on Buchanan, yes?

21st July 2009, 01:13 PM	#18
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,451	Originally Posted by David Wong No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it. It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!" Thank you for saving be the trouble of replying to thaiboxerken's remark.

21st July 2009, 01:15 PM	#19
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by David Wong No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it. It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!" This is SOP for liberal pundit shows. The View has on Liz Hasellbach to argue the conservative POV. While she may not share PB&J's crazy weltanschauung, she also doesn't have PB&J's gift for polemics.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

21st July 2009, 01:15 PM	#20
pgwenthold Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 8,795	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate OK, so let me introduce another subject. "Pat Buchanan called out by people who are not mentally ill." Whatever we may think of Ms Maddow about other issues, she's got him bang to rights about this one, hasn't she? So less of the ad hominem and more with the spitting on Buchanan, yes? That's Dr Maddow, btw (she has a PhD in Poly Sci from Oxford or Cambridge ... I forget which one)
pgwenthold Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 8,795	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

21st July 2009, 01:15 PM	#21
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by dudalb Thank you for saving be the trouble of replying to thaiboxerken's remark. Be has been saved, thank Wong!

21st July 2009, 01:16 PM	#22
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate OK, so let me introduce another subject. "Pat Buchanan called out by people who are not mentally ill." Whatever we may think of Ms Maddow about other issues, she's got him bang to rights about this one, hasn't she? So less of the ad hominem and more with the spitting on Buchanan, yes? Even a blind squirrel occasionally roots up an acorn.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

21st July 2009, 01:18 PM	#23
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by pgwenthold That's Dr Maddow, btw (she has a PhD in Poly Sci from Oxford or Cambridge ... I forget which one) Well I have a PhD in math, but I don't make people refer to me as ... OK, I'll shut up now.

21st July 2009, 01:19 PM	#24
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by Cicero Even a blind squirrel occasionally roots up an acorn. Is this your way of admitting that she was right?

21st July 2009, 01:24 PM	#25
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by pgwenthold That's Dr Maddow, btw (she has a PhD in Poly Sci from Oxford or Cambridge ... I forget which one) How many times did (or do) you refer to the former Secretary of State as Dr. Rice? Babs Boxer refers to her as "madam."
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

21st July 2009, 01:27 PM	#26
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Is this your way of admitting that she was right? Read post #2
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

21st July 2009, 02:25 PM	#27
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by Cicero Read post #2 Is that your way of saying yes?

21st July 2009, 02:42 PM	#28
Cleon King of the Pod People Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 14,362	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Is that your way of saying yes? I think Cicero would sooner have his arm chewed off by rabid weasels than admit that a liberal was correct.
	__________________ "Intolerance does not flourish without ignorance to feed it." - kittynh "A jerk who is right is still a jerk." - Ducky My blog

21st July 2009, 02:54 PM	#29
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	Originally Posted by David Wong No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. The strawman is built by you. Rachel isn't saying that what Pat says represents the republican opposition to Sotomayor. She's saying that Pat is a more extreme voice of what the republican opposition is saying. They are trying to use her race as the reason to why they oppose her. Pat's racism is just more visible. The rest of them, they seem to be raising racist points with more subterfuge.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

21st July 2009, 03:21 PM	#30
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Originally Posted by David Wong No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it. It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!" I agree with this. I didn't like the video because Maddow was obviously playing the partisan distortion game as much as Buchanan was. Yes, Buchanan seems to have no freaking clue what AA is or does (if the much-discussed court case says anything about AA, it's that AA ideals were upheld), and yes Buchanan is a raging bigot. However, Maddow's attempt form the get-go to make the discussion only about race (yes, I know that many senators beat the race card drum in the hearings) just shows her own political blind spot-- well, that or it was a really poor impression of Jon Stewart. Side note regarding the hearings: I have to say that I have on several occasions been very impressed with Senator Lindsey Graham and his refreshing candor. I recall him having the same type of open, frank, yet still critical type of candor when Roberts was up for review, and I recall he did the same with Alito. I may not agree with some of his politics and I may not agree with the way he may vote in congress, but I do have to say that this is one of the guys in the Republican Party that I actually respect for his straight-forward demeanor and his fairly consistent conduct in these SCOTUS hearings. I'm glad that he's currently in office for the opposition party.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

21st July 2009, 04:05 PM	#31
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,451	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken The strawman is built by you. Rachel isn't saying that what Pat says represents the republican opposition to Sotomayor. She's saying that Pat is a more extreme voice of what the republican opposition is saying. They are trying to use her race as the reason to why they oppose her. Pat's racism is just more visible. The rest of them, they seem to be raising racist points with more subterfuge. Ya gotta love semantics. That is distinctiion without a difference. The end message is the same:The vast majority of the GOP is racist and evil.

21st July 2009, 04:12 PM	#32
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,451	Quote: agree with this. I didn't like the video because Maddow was obviously playing the partisan distortion game as much as Buchanan was. Yes, Buchanan seems to have no freaking clue what AA is or does (if the much-discussed court case says anything about AA, it's that AA ideals were upheld), and yes Buchanan is a raging bigot. However, Maddow's attempt form the get-go to make the discussion only about race (yes, I know that many senators beat the race card drum in the hearings) just shows her own political blind spot-- well, that or it was a really poor impression of Jon Stewart. Exactly. Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are using the same tactic: Take an extreme example and then say "THis is what conservatives (Or liberals) are really like". They also use a variation on this: Pick well spoken,intelligent spokesman for your point of view, and pick people who come off poorly on TV as the spokesmen for the opposite point of view. What I don't get is how people can--with a straight face-- condemn a tactic when used by the opposition, but support it when used by somoene on their side. In many cases,the underlying thought is "I know they are using cheap tactics, but any means is justified if my side wins".

21st July 2009, 04:20 PM	#33
Olowkow Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,548	Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? She looks white to me. Latina is not a race. There are black, white, oriental and indian latinos. Latino just means Spanish speaking and not from Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino Quote: In the United States, the term is in official use in the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino, defined as "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.
Olowkow Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,548	__________________ It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer. --Albert Einstein Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare

21st July 2009, 04:36 PM	#34
David Wong Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,697	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken The strawman is built by you. Rachel isn't saying that what Pat says represents the republican opposition to Sotomayor. She's saying that Pat is a more extreme voice of what the republican opposition is saying. They are trying to use her race as the reason to why they oppose her. Pat's racism is just more visible. The rest of them, they seem to be raising racist points with more subterfuge. She could have had any of countless Republicans as guests. She chose him. She chose him for a specific purpose: Because it's easy to make him look like a fool. She didn't invent the technique; they all do it. I heard Sean Hannity bring a liberal 19 year-old girl on to debate (a college student who had written an angry email or something) and Thom Hartmann loves to bring on that nutbar from the Ayn Rand institute to be the representative of what "the right" wants to do in America.
	__________________ Author, John Dies at the End. Available now in hardcover. Editor, Cracked.com.

21st July 2009, 04:43 PM	#35
dirtywick Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 894	Originally Posted by Olowkow Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? She looks white to me. Latina is not a race. There are black, white, oriental and indian latinos. Latino just means Spanish speaking and not from Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino Eh, it's as much a race as any of the other race labels are.
dirtywick Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 894